Give me reasons why the Royal Rumble should remain at 30 participants....
 

For the longest time I've wanted the Royal Rumble Match expanded to 40, 50 or even 60 men for numerous reasons..... It is easily the second biggest PPV of the year and now with The Undertaker's streak broken, the most popular "attraction" in WWE. More Superstars means more surprises and more importantly, more time to establish stars by having several dominant performances rather than only a few.

I understand the logistical nightmare of having to coordinate 10-20 more eliminations and having to fill 30+ minutes of airtime (especially with recent criticism of the writing staff), but I cannot see any detriment to having a longer Rumble where the participants enter every 1:30.

So in my perfect world, the PPV would have a preshow match (IC or TT Title Match), the other title match on the main card, followed by a Divas Title Match, WWE Title Match and a good 1.5 hours dedicated to the Rumble Match itself.

Discuss, please.

They can't even fill a regular ppv card without the star power dragging.

We've already seen a 40-Man Royal Rumble, and it really didn't bring any extra sense of excitement or unpredictability to the match. Besides that, if you put 50 or 60 guys into one match, it stands to reason that you'd have to probably find time for them on non-PPV TV, but then by oversaturating the RR match with small name superstars who have little if any future, you defeat said purpose of puttibg them on TV. People would lose interest in the product, ratings would suffer and the company would be in even more dire straits than it already is.

Yeah when they did the 40 man Rumble it was clear that it was done to incorporate the Nexus/Corre members and the last batch of entrants seemed totally rushed. It's already impossible to make even 5 entrants seem like viable winners, so diluting it further doesn't make any sense at all.

All this serves is to give more spots to surprises like diesel, Goldust etc that serve no purpose beyond a brief pop.

Should be kept at 30 and there should be a bit of prestige with being in there. I liked the fuss and the angles about what number people were getting

I also think they should go back to using qualifying matches to get into the Rumble. Give a bit of prestige back to actually being in the thing.

<font color=goldenrod>Yeah I miss the qualifying matches. I mean last year's Rumble featured the likes of Zack Ryder, Adam Rose, Titus O'Neil, and Curtis Axel (who is still active in the match I believe). But those guys were never anything more than Superstars fodder.....yet they still deserved a chance to go to WrestleMania?

I mean with mystery entrants you need to suspend your disbelief a bit. It's impossible to think of a kayfabe scenario where in 2012 Vince or whoever was like "you know what? let's give the 3 announcers a chance to go to WrestleMania. they deserve it!" But I feel like anybody on the regular roster should have to qualify.</font>

Is the WWE even aware that they have 30 active wrestlers on their roster?

I definitely think it would add something to it if people needed to qualify.

It can start angles too and further feuds. Ambrose costing Owens his qualifier for example would add to the heat of their rivalry. You could also add a shock in there, someone established like Kane losing their qualifier to a rookie could give someone a nice story and focus going in to the rumble.

You could even do a mini tournament in NxT for a place in the Rumble.

http://www.axelmania.com/

Also

http://www.whereisaxel.com/

Take it for what it is, but the 40-man Rumble match is my favourite one. That's not so much to do with the number of participants, but just the writing and choreography for every single entrant was well done.

Ever since then (2012 and onwards), all they do is come out and brawl. Boooooooring.....

From a kayfabe sense, every person in the Royal Rumble should be a viable winner and contender for the title at Wrestlemania. 30 is too many really, and 40 or more is downright silly.

<font color=goldenrod>I like the idea of having some jobbers in the Rumble as underdogs where it can be like "huge opportunity for this guy, this could be his only chance at earning a spot in a WrestleMania main event".

But that only works if you do qualifying matches. Otherwise it just gives the impression that Vince is walking around backstage and he just sees some random guy and throws them out there willy-nilly.</font>

<font color=goldenrod>Think during the first 3 or 4 Rumbles of the brand split era they did a pretty good job of making most of the wrestlers earn their way in save for a mystery entrant here and there. Was easier to pull off when each show was held to 15 wrestlers for the Rumble match.</font>

Now you know WWE can't write that many story lines that are that complex and keep them interesting, compelling and not cluster fucks.

25 of the guys in this year's Rumble are either straight up jobbers or JTTS's. A 20 man rumble, like the original, seems more appropriate.

I can see where this year with like 5-7 big name guys injured and certain not to be back by the 2016 RR match, it would be quite easy for fans to feel cynical and/or just a general sense of malaise.

I mean, last year, we at least had the all-too-brief illusion that "Hey, Daniel Bryan is the first one to officially enter! No WAY he could possibly NOT win...right?" until the actual match played out, and the end result I'm sure probably makes hardcore fans weary of something similar happening next month.

I'm really, really, REALLY fucking loathe to admit this, but Cena returning and then entering the match, even though he likely won't win if reports of him taking even more time off after the show turn out to be true, it could brighten up an otherwise probably pretty dull match.

Given their run of horrible ring names/gimmicks, how did they go this long without naming SOMEONE Willy Nilly. Seems like a Henry O Godwin stable wrassler.

They should have a 20 woman Royal Rumble along with it in the undercard.

I think the Rumble should be the lottery ticket. In theory anyone who is a regular on TV should be in it. I would guess there are roughly 25-30 guys who appear on TV most weeks. Then you exclude the champ, the guy in the world title match, and possibly some tag guys. But everyone else should be in it IMO. Ultimately close to half of the field will be canon fodder, but I think that's fine.

I like the idea of having 2-3 spots for returning guys to add an element of unpredictability to the show.

I wonder if they would consider a women's Rumble at some point. Obviously not with 30 participants, but they could do a 10-15 woman Rumble. Only problem is it devalues the main Rumble.

The fuck? This doesn't seem like sarcasm.

Sadly, with this roster, I think double duty will be a necessity, and I would rather see some tag team guys like New Day, Lucha Dragons and PTP rather than Bo Dallas, Adam Rose, Fandango and Curtis Axel.

I would prefer a 20 man rumble. The two things that can make the match extremely interesting are unpredictably, and there being big name storylines going on during the match. The lack of realistic possible winners is what really needs to be fixed. Lately between the booking, and the internet, it seems as if almost every year for the past decade, I could only realistically see like 3-4 guys winning it. Right now a lot of top guys are out, so that might affect it, too. And then when it comes to feuds /angles becoming entangled in the rumble, I think they have a great opportunity to set that up. Having Owens and Ambrose having to always have their eye on the other, the stables and tag teams working together (Wyatts, League of Nations, Reigns Ambrose Usos, the Dudleys). But for both instances, less participants is better. I would like 20 participants that are 17 of the main people that are on Raw and Smackdown that aren't just ridiculously unbelievable (i.e. Zack Ryder .. It was cool to root for Santino but that was literally the only time I remember thinking somebody totally unbelievable could win). And, surprises. I'd also like to see the Beast Incarnate show up and suplex a ton of dudes over the top rope.

10, MAYBE 15, with a 60 second interval. I'm one of the bigger fans of the current Divas product but over-exposing this on a major PPV would be a bad idea.

60 Men was already done by WCW and it was awful

42 rasslers in the rumble is the correct answer. Anything less ain't royal.

Can anyone confirm if Axel is still in the 2015 Rumble? Last I checked, he is.

Thing is even at 20 you won't have 20 guys who can headline Mania. Most years at best you would have 8-10, and even that might be a stretch.

I can and its been 325 days 20 hours 13 minutes and counting. If you want to check for yourself go to http://www.axelmania.com/

I think it is better to have 20 guys with a handful of legit contenders go for 30-40 minutes than 30 guys for an hour with large portions filled by losers brawling and being bored to tears watching Zach Ryder hold Viktor on the ropes. Just a personal preference.

Only reason it was 40 for a year was due to the WWE wanting a stable war at the Rumble even though it never really happened in the actual match. Corre and Nexus had a pre-match brawl probably because the WWE realized they messed up with the Rumble ordering but still needed a reason to justify the expansion.

It should stay at 30 since it fits well with the Rumble setup. Only a couple of guys are usually seen as legit choices each year while a couple of guest entrants doesn't water down the surprise factor. That leaves a manageable number left as possible dark horses or regular guys to fill up the ranks.

Axel was thrown over the top rope many times already.

I really wish that they would bring back the old school promos before the Rumble itself. Just give each guy 15-30 seconds to rip on why they will win the Rumble.

Not during the Rumble, he should have to be eliminated twice this year.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...GSqzyYNahKRZl2

So Axel will have been in this year's Rumble match for more than 1 year when next month's match takes place on January 24th...and people thought Rey's performance in 2006 was impressive at 1 hour 2 minutes and some seconds.

And yes, Axel should have to be eliminated twice. If not, an unlikely dream comes true.

Without it being mentioned he should be eliminated, immediately leap back in, and get eliminated again. Then Cole says "there now shut up!"

Also I hate Hogan for ruining Axelmania.

Axel should just not be in it so he can die still in the Rumble then they can toss his corpse over the top when hes dead

Curtis Axel will never die.

Because less is more.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XeTFMFlIWCA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I'm surprised by the number of opinions contrary to mine....Props to you all for the discussion just the same.....

Did you like my use of the toilet paper commercial?

cause your posts are poop, Savior?

I've got the very unpopular opinion that the Rumble should no longer be for the title shot. If you're trying to present wrestling a sports-based concept, then the idea of the biggest match of the year being so heavily influenced by "luck" is sort of baffling. There was a time when the Rumble winner getting an automatic title match at WrestleMania worked and was a great way of anointing a guy to carry things moving forward, but in an era where the product is more transparent and fans don't appreciate being manipulated and bite back against predictability, I think the Rumble would generate a lot more interest if it were "freed up" so to speak.

* The chances of an unpredictable winner goes up. Realistically, when you are talking about the WrestleMania title match, you only have a few guys that are going to be in there. Roman Reigns, Brock Lesnar or John Cena are basically your shortlist of guys. Maybe The Rock if they can get him back. The idea that Kevin Owens or Dean Ambrose could be the 2016 Royal Rumble Winner goes up if you remove the title shot stipulation.

* Backlash against Batista and Roman Reigns winning at the past two Royal Rumbles is immediately lessened if so much pressure isn't put on them winning. Batista returning to the win the 2014 Royal Rumble seems like far more of a "Well, of course him winning it makes sense" if he's not bumping Daniel Bryan out of a desirable spot; and Reigns winning as a relatively huge feather in his cap is far less offensive to people when it doesn't necessarily come attached to the idea that Daniel Bryan is out as golden child.

* The Rumble is enough of an attraction on its own. People get excited about the match every year, but when was the last time a guy actually winning it was considered "important"? It's arguable that no one has really gotten a "rub" from winning since Alberto Del Rio. To go back and find someone who won the Rumble as a big lead-in to a first title match and they actually got to headline Mania, prior to Roman Reigns, you have to go back to Batista in 2005.

The WWE has trouble creating new stars, and something like the Rumble hasn't been bastardized too much to the point where it wouldn't help someone "randomly" winning. But it could use some fresh winners -- guys that the WWE might not be willing to get 100% behind right now in the star-centric WrestleMania season. Someone like Dolph Ziggler might get quite a lot out of an impressive Royal Rumble win, and help give other areas of the Mania card a boost. Someone like Sami Zayn showing up and actually winning the Rumble in a debut showing makes him appear to be a hot commodity, gives him HUGE credibility out the gate, and could be used to fuel a WrestleMania IC Title match against Kevin Owens for him.